Commentary
If you thought partisanship on how to stop the advance of Asian carp had waned, think again.
Representatives of the region’s mayors and governors released a study this week that called for construction of permanent physical barriers in the Chicago Area Waterways System. The system is the primary vector for Asian carp.
Media coverage was comprehensive and reaction was swift and divided.
Media – print, electronic and social – from as far away as Seattle picked up the story and featured it prominently.
Twitter lit up with the results of the study.
Enviro groups, who generally favor physical separation of the Great Lakes from the Mississippi River, had their well-orchestrated and supportive press releases on the wires before noon.
A key business coalition historically against separation quickly condemned the report. The study’s findings were also met with a quick rebuke by the Indiana Congressional delegation.
Chicago and Illinois politicians listed by the study’s sponsors as supportive of the report were actually more acknowledging than supportive. No change there.
And the Joyce Foundation praised the effort in a Chicago Tribune Op/Ed. Why not? It funded the study as it historically has funded Great Lakes work by environmental groups.
Where does that leave us?
Where we started.
After a year-long effort, on which most interested parties had some input, those who were for separation are still for it. Those against remain against.
And did anyone really study the report including its costs before reacting?
Reactions were more about protecting turf and staying on message. They reminded me of the state of our political process in 
Washington.
No one is listening and everyone is talking past those with opposing views.
Actually, there was one organization that reacted responsibly.
Chicago’s Metropolitan Water Reclamation District, the agency that manages the plumbing for greater Chicago, made the right call.
Allison Fore, a district media representative, said in a written statement that the district is “neutral” on watershed separation.
“The report needs to be reviewed in detail to sift through the ideas before any substantial comments can be made.”
There’s a thought. Study the report before commenting.
Or go farther.
What if interested groups with different constituents and agendas had declared a one month moratorium on public comment? They could have engaged in meaningful dialogue and then offered considered public statements.
I know that hardened positions can change over time and maybe that’s what will happen here.
Separating the Great Lakes from the Mississippi River is a major issue with huge costs and significant impacts on the economy and ecology of the region.
It deserves better than the self-serving and narrow-minded rhetoric that currently dominates the debate.
Let’s craft our messages in a manner that invites dialogue on our differences with an eye on working together to achieve results.
Because behaving like our dysfunctional Washington politicians is no way to support the Great Lakes.
Pingback: Of Asian carp, water privatization and media metrics… what’s an editor to do? | Great Lakes Echo
If I may please find, (Ecological Factors affecting the sustainability of Chinook and Coho Salmon Populations in the Great Lakes, especially Lake Michigan Hansen/Holley 2002) This should splain what the problem is, to anyone.
Dose anybody no if Rick Santorum is interest in protecting the Great Lakes with any American made ballast water laws that do not just copy an international organization of foreign economic shipping business interest or if his views on Asian carp and the sanitary canal are any different than that of the current commander and chief with Illinois roots?
I paticipated in the GLMRIS conference call Feb.8 regarding the proposed control plans. The bad news is they will take the 5 years or more for thier studies, and they’re only in the first stage now. There is no good news. You can go to the GLMRIS website read the proposals, and have until Feb.17th to comment.
P.S. According too the GLMRIS Invasive species control, under biological, page 5, Predtaors, 75% of cases, generalist predators (Perch and Walleye would fit this) reduced pest numbers significantly”
I like 75% effective, pretty clear what we’re doing now ain’t working!
Dear Paul,
The fact is the alewives (by predation on larval fish) have been keeping the native fish population knocked down in Lake Michigan for over 50 years, this is well documented. Again google (alewives prey on larval fish)google is best, because there’s many. It is illegal in Vermont to transport alewives dead or alive, when alewives show up, large zooplankton disappears, and algae blooms increase (large zooplankton best at controling algae), then native fish recuitment (survival of spawn attempt) drastically reduced or wiped out. In one 10 year study almost 100% of lake trout spawn attempts wiped out by alewives, every year! all this is documented. Plus those nasty biologists are increasing the alewives on purpose, by cutting thier main predator (salmon) how does increasing an invasive species, help us fight invasive species? “Lack of predators” is the standard biologist statement for why invasives thrive. This doesn’t mean we don’t have any, this means, we’re “lacking” enough, or sufficient numbers.
After 7 years, I am tired of hearing “the salmon are worth billions of dollars” where’s the money going? License sales don’t show it, hundreds of bait shops closed? Empty boat launches? When they said they had too many salmon they had to increase the limit to get rid off them. There was no rush to buy salmon boats, for the great too many salmon fishing! Since they made snagging illegal, those hillbillys don’t come here anymore, haven’t for years. If you have a place with too many Perch or walleye, you have to restrict people from taking too many, and boat launches are packed. In Illinois only 6% fish the big lake high costs. You want kids into fishing, how many kids dad have a salmon boat to go 20 miles out into the lake where the “good fishin” is? or $500. bucks for a charter? We have native predators for Asian Carp, and every invasive species we have now, including lampreys! The problem is they’re not surving the spawn attempt, due to disruption by invasive species, which have sufficient numbers to do that, that’s are fault. I learned this stuff, from all these nasty biologists, thier facts, and data. There is no threat of having too many native fish, there is a very real threat of having too many Asian Carp, and without or a low predator population, we’ll a carp problem. We already have an invasive species problem and they don’t grow too big, and live 25+ years, the carp do!
There are hundreds if not thousands of biologist eyewittness acounts (studies) out there that even with the internet, will never see the light of day, let alone the front page of the paper. If you google (Alewives prey on larval Perch and Walleye) you find study after study that will show the true cost of keeping the alewives. Keep in mind only the salmon has to have alewives to survive, no other fish. The entire ecosystem, and every other fish would benefit from the loss of the alewives. There is no such thing as a safe invasive species. These studies are done so fishery managers, can make good decisions, most are ignored, because they have to be to keep the alewives. If we fight invasive species we have to fight them all. If you don’t wish to bother to find out the truth, please don’t fault me because i did. If we don’t have to worry about the alewives we have unlimited options, If have to worry about alewives zero options. Asian Carp play for keeps. We can’t fault the carp or any invasive species, they have no choice, we are the only ones with a choice of actions.
I have noticed that Tom Matych has a recurring theme in his posts. That being, if we remove salmon from the Great Lakes and heavily invest in increasing native predators we can control invasive species. I’m not saying you are wrong, but, now that the Pandora’s Box of invasives has been wide open for about 70 yrs., I don’t think that even bringing native predators back to known historical highs could cope with the immense biomass and diversity of invasives. This is not even considering Asian carp, and if they get into the Great Lakes, they would completely overwhelm the fish community. We have had common carp here for many decades and I don’t think our native predators have them under any kind of control.
Predator fish have certain preferences for their main choice of food, yes, they will eat some of every food item available, but, given a choice of a hard body, scaley, spiney, oval fish, or a soft body, soft rayed, streamlined fish, the choice would be the latter. Even in Lake Superior, where stocked and naturally produced lake trout are at known historical highs, they could not control sea lamprey if USFWS discontinued lamprey control measures. If salmon stocking in Lake Michigan were discontinued, the alewife population would soon increase dramatically and we would have beaches once again filled with windrows of dead stinking alewife. I don’t think those nasty biologists imported alewife so they could begin a salmon program. The alewife got here through the Welland Canal. So if alewife and salmon are out in the middle of the lake playing tag, how does that affect, one way or another, other predators that might be preying on juvenile invasives in shallow water nursery areas? Whether it is pike, walleye, brown trout or others feeding on carp, minnows, gobies or alewife during their inshore spawning run, or perch feeding on mussels and minnows, or bass feeding on rusty crayfish, minnows, alewife or gobies. How is that negatively affected by salmon and alewife interrelations? It seems that they are mutually compatible in different niches of the lake.
I do know that over the last 40+ years, millions of anglers have caught hundreds of millions of stocked Pacific salmon, contributing hundreds of Billions of dollars to our economy. Additionally, re-stocking millions of lake trout, and stocking rainbow trout, brown trout, brook trout, Atlantic salmon, walleye, pike, bass and others has added to the fishery value of the Great Lakes. A value that should not be jeopardized by any invasive species.
I have sevaral studies and data, regarding predator control, that I have condensed. If anyone would like to post a mailing address of a bait shop near you, (I have no idea where you guys are) I will be more than happy to mail copies, at my expense. I had a couple hundred printed up. I enjoy this site, good articles, good comments, but it’s time for action. Native predators, is a viable doable, environmentally friendly invasive species control. Gary and the Echo, provide me an address, i’ll send them to you as well.
Good article, politics and money wont solve this problem, only nature and common sense can do that and we’re running short on both. Restoring our native predators, turns the entire lake into an invasive species control, no matter how they get in. We have several native fish that will eat Juvenile Asian Carp, non of them are salmon, and there’s nothing anyone can do to change that. Having our main predator (salmon) out in the middle of the lake playing tag with the alewives (the only invasive it will eat) isn’t working out. With the price of gas more and more people are getting rid of thier big boats, (pontoons big seller, these people are not going for salmon) we need predators in the warmwater spawning/nursery areas, where all these invasives are getting thier start, and where baby carp will be. This is based on what seems to be basic fish biology 101, however it clashes alewife protection 101. Pick one. You can’t have an invasive species (alewives) be the most important fish in your lake, and act surprised you have an invasive species problem?
Here’s an excerpt from Detroit Free Press Outdoors writer Eric Sharp
on the separation study.
“After the coalition announced the results of its study, I made calls to some of the usual suspects on both sides of the canal-closing argument and got the usual comments from each side, the equivalent of a half-dozen 30-second sound bites that in the grand scheme were meaningless.”
His full commentary is here.
http://www.freep.com/article/20120205/SPORTS10/202050513/Eric-Sharp-Dollars-and-sense-over-Asian-carp
Since the official plan for Lake michigan, is the alewives dominate (roughly 8 billion+) only a couple million pounds of Perch, and only 200,000 pounds of Walleye, for all of Lake Michigan and connecting waters, Source Fishery commission. I don’t need to go to fish school to see something amiss. Some background, 7 years ago the DNR asked for suggestions on how to deal with the zebras and gobies. Ohio and Wisconsin DNR had found that zebras/goby control the food until native fish get to 2 inches at that point the gobies and zebras become the food. We offerd to stock Perch at 2 inches. I have a stack of excuses from the DNR why we can’t, none pass the smell test. “Marinas took all the weeds” “not enough food” “No data that Walleyes eat gobies” It’s no secret, that the DNR and I have issues, ask any of them, I’ve dealt with most. What you have to understand, any plan for Lake Michigan, has to pass the Alewife test, any plan, your plan, my plan, howdy doodies plan, if it threatens the alewives it’s automatically a bad plan. The fact is you can’t protect one invasive species without protecting them all. The proof is in the lake. ‘Native “biotic-resistance” will work anywhere in the world, except lake Michigan, IF we believe the DNR. You see if we restore the native fishery, somebody will ask why this wasn’t done before, and that my friends is the only thing stopping us from saving our lakes! Pretty sad really, but true.
More political posturing vs. substance on the separation study. This time from the congressional Great Lakes Task Force.
The study’s authors have said they’ve been sharing info with the Army Corps of Engineers. And the Corps has said it is reviewing the study.
Here’s the letter from Mi’s Senator Levin to the head of the Corps.
http://politicalnews.me/?id=11516&keys=WATERWAY-SYSTEM-MISSISSIPPI-RIVER
With respect, according to the legend, invasive species did not thrive until overfishing, reduced the native fish population, (lack of predators) laketrout was not our only predator fished out. Perch feed heavily on zebra/quagga mussels, but not heavily enough, the same could be said of salmon/alewives if they only planted a thousand. Salmon are useless against every invasive species including alewives, as they cannot survive without them, so you can never not have an invasive problem. The DNR’s have known what alewives do to native fish, have from the begining. Yet they are openly increasing the alewives, an invasive species, to save the salmon, also an invasive species. Conspirasy? Nope just the plan. Restoring the Walleyes in Saginaw bay, wiped out the alewives, and all native fish are rebounding, minus alewives, and fighting back, (native strike back syndrome) the DNR called it. In the pacific northwest, they’re are working hard to get rid of Perch and walleyes thier invasive species, that are eating the salmon. A former Illinois biologist slipped up a while back, and said “we have hatchery jobs to think about’ no we have a problem to solve, and keeping the salmon is clearly not working. Waiting 5 years for the fed plan is a joke, taking 10 years to fill in a river is ridiculous, paying billions of dollars to plug one hole is nuts. Restoring native fish/predators to high levels does not interfere with any Asian Carp plans, agreed to by Carp czar John Goss Saginaw meeting. However restoring native predators would be the end of the great “salmon experiment” and that my friends is the truth. Thier jobs or our lake?
Dave,
Thanks for taking the time to comment.
Yes, I could have talked about the merits of both arguments – I do have opinions. It’s a complex topic but simply put, my sentiments lean toward separating the two waterways.
But if I have an instant reaction to the study I’m just as guilty as the others who took the ready, fire, aim approach.
I’d prefer to look at the study, listen and learn. That will add to the credibility of whatever I have to say.
My decision was not to dissect the merits of the arguments but to say,
how can there be meaningful discussions if the other side already has its mind made up.
Gary Wilson
Physical barriers are clearly the best way to deter the spread of invasive species in the Great Lakes. Niagara Falls is perhaps the best example, as it long prevented the spread of lampreys and other exotic species until we built canals to get around that physical barrier. There is absolutely no good reason not to re-establish a physical barrier between the Mississippi River system and the Great Lakes watershed. It is simply foolish to not even try; to do nothing. As preferable as native species are, please remember that exotic species become invasive primarily because native species are NOT adept at controlling their populations.
Both political parties understand that even with bipartisan support they cannot get pass the USACE and Tea Party partnership making sure the Asian carp become established in the Great Lakes.
Rather than criticizing the tactics of those who are different sides of the asian carp issue, why not address the substance of each side’s positions?
In so many of the other cases in which observers fall back on the “pox on both their houses” meme, their middle of the road posturing is more a result of lack of knowledge of the issue than an accurate assessment of each side’s substantive arguments.
Then again, this was an op-ed piece so perhaps the “drive-by” nature of the comments don’t really matter much.
I’m not sure which Frank Tom is talking about, but I can assure you it’s not this one.
At any rate, this Frank would like to make three points:
1. The GLC study is not just about preventing the introduction of Asian Carp to the Great Lakes. It is also about addressing other environmental and economic needs in the Chicago area, including management of stormwater, treatment of wastewater, and the transition of current economic uses. It is a bona fide attempt at creating a dialogue on a holistic solution and should be considered and treated as such. In that way, I agree whole-heartedly with Gary: This should not be about winning points in the spin battle. It should be about dialogue on how to address issues in a way that maximizes how everyone’s interests can be served. I think that is what the GLC and Cities Initiative were trying to do.
2. There is a significant question about to what extent we seek to prevent the spread of species around the globe. After all, nature has a way and human action (which, by the way, I recognize as a false distinction since I consider humans part of nature)can both facilitate and impede what would otherwise occur through “natural” processes. That creates an obligation in my view of considering when we facilitate and when we impede. At least from my perspective, there is no question we should impede in the case of Asian Carp: Just look how resources have been impacted and human use of the natural environment has changed in those ecoystems (beyond their “natural range”)in which they have thrived. I wonder if anyone would try to make the case that it’s been “for the better”. The investment is worth it.
3. Finally, I’m not sure what “point” it is that Tom feels is being ignored by those darn fish biologists. But my experience has been that it is usually inaccurate to attribute people’s actions to some sinister motive or conspiracy theory. Usually, they are just trying to do what they honestly think is best. Yes, we can differ about what we think is best and yes we can be misguided and uninformed when drawing judgements about “the good”, but attributing malintent doesn’t facilitate the dialogue. And, as I said above, the dialogue about how to solve problems is the key to getting it as close to “right” as possible.
If I may be Frank for a moment. Well Frank says: Closing the canal tommorrow will not stop the Asian Carp from getting in the lakes. Barriers of whatever cost or design, are band-aids, very expensive and will have to be paid for forever. Barriers do not reduce invasive species numbers. If you look close at the plans, most involve high costs and involve long term employment for X amount of biologists, Ray guns, lights, sound etc… Conflicts of interests? Several. Millions of dollars spent on one spot (Chicago) $10 million per year for one spot (chicago) Millions of dollars in studies already paid for,by bonified fish biologists that tell us native predators is our best defense/attack. The basics and fundamentals of fish biology ignored, by the MDNR because thier reputation is at stake, “the salmon saved the lake” Hogwash! I’ve have been one on one, with most of the players in the Asian Carp thing. You get one to five minutes to make your point, they have all day long to think up excuses. There is no dialogue,they don’t like hard questions. They just want you to lobby for funding for Rayguns!!!!!